The app

The Soulsync universe

Soulsync Library
Books, podcasts and videos on love, attachment and the self.
Soulsync Lab
Eighty years of research on connection, read for you.
Soulsync Safety
Your data protected, and harm-free encounters. European hosting, zero resale, caring moderation.

Manifesto Stories News

Get early access

Research unit

Soulsync Lab

The science behind every decision.

We didn't invent slowness. We read what eighty years of research say about meeting someone, and we built from there.

Built onBowlbyAinsworthHazan & ShaverFisherAronFinkelIyengar

What we think we know

Six sayings about love.
What research actually says.

Dating is a subject everyone has an opinion on. For each received idea, here is the study, the researcher, and the published result.

01 / 06
Popular belief
« Opposites attract. »
Research verdict: False
Researcher
Donald Byrne
Indiana University, social psychology
The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, 1971
What the study says
Byrne established the "law of attraction": interpersonal attraction is a direct function of the percentage of attitude similarity between two people. Fifty years later, the meta-analysis by Montoya, Horton and Kirchner (Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2008, 313 studies) confirms a strong correlation between real similarity and attraction (r = .47). Complementarity of character, on the other hand, produces no significant effect.
02 / 06
Popular belief
« When you know, you know. »
Research verdict: Myth
Researcher
Samantha Joel, Paul Eastwick, Eli Finkel
Western University, UC Davis, Northwestern University
Is Romantic Desire Predictable?, Psychological Science, 2017
What the study says
Eighty characteristics measured at the start of a meeting, across nearly 800 participants tracked over time. None of these early predictors, intuition included, can anticipate the attraction felt toward a specific partner. The quality of a relationship is built in the interaction, not in the first instant.
03 / 06
Popular belief
« There's only one soulmate. »
Research verdict: Myth
Researcher
C. Raymond Knee
University of Houston, department of psychology
Implicit Theories of Relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998
What the study says
Knee distinguishes two beliefs among lovers: destiny theory (there is one unique person), and growth theory (a couple is built). People who believe in the one unique soulmate break up faster in the face of disagreements, and their relationships are, in the long run, less satisfying than those of growth believers.
04 / 06
Popular belief
« True love takes no effort. »
Research verdict: False
Researcher
John Gottman
University of Washington, founder of the Love Lab
Gottman & Levenson, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2000
What the study says
Three thousand couples filmed and followed over fourteen years. Gottman predicts separation with 93% accuracy by observing how partners handle a fifteen-minute disagreement. Couples who last maintain an observed ratio of five positive interactions to one negative. Lasting love is a skill, not a grace.
05 / 06
Popular belief
« The more choice, the better you find. »
Research verdict: False
Researcher
Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper
Columbia University and Stanford University
When Choice is Demotivating, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000
What the study says
Twenty-four jams on display: three percent of passersby buy one. Six jams on display: thirty percent buy one. Twenty years later, D'Angelo and Toma (Media Psychology, 2017) confirm the effect on dating apps: too many profiles degrade the quality of choice and increase post-decision regret.
06 / 06
Popular belief
« You recognize love at first sight. »
Research verdict: Nuanced
Researcher
Arthur Aron and Elaine Aron
Stony Brook University, intimate relationships lab
The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1997
What the study says
Aron shows that strangers can generate lasting, sometimes romantic, closeness by answering thirty-six increasingly personal questions, in steps of mutual disclosure. Love isn't recognized at first sight. It's built, through questions and shared silences.

What follows

Six product decisions, six research findings.

Every choice Soulsync makes rests on published, peer-reviewed work. Here's how.

« Romantic love is not an emotion. It's a motivation system, a brain state oriented toward choosing a partner. »
Helen Fisher, anthropologist (Rutgers University)

Six decisions, six foundations

01Predictive validity

Compatibility can't be predicted. It's lived.

The largest scientific review on the subject concludes that algorithms based on similarity or complementarity have almost no predictive value. What predicts the quality of a couple is the way two people interact, not a score calculated before they ever speak.

Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis & Sprecher (2012), Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

→ Soulsync doesn't sell a magic algorithm, but an eleven-step journey that generates real interaction.

02Choice overload

Too much choice makes us unable to choose.

Beyond a handful of options, satisfaction and engagement collapse. In online dating, an abundance of profiles degrades the quality of decisions and increases regret over the choice made.

Iyengar & Lepper (2000), JPSP; D'Angelo & Toma (2017), Media Psychology.

→ Connexion Day shows you four profiles a day. Not four hundred.

03Similarity & values

We love what resembles us, on the essentials.

Eighty years of work converge: similarity, especially of values, predicts attraction and satisfaction. The famous "complementary needs theory" has never been solidly confirmed. The complementarity that lasts isn't of character, it's of life trajectories.

Byrne (1971); Winch (1958), refuted; Montoya, Horton & Kirchner (2008), JSPR.

→ Soulsync matches you on your deep values, then lets you discover how you complement each other.

04Attachment theory

Loving, as an adult, is replaying an attachment story.

The way we bond as adults extends our early attachment patterns. Understanding your own style, secure, anxious, avoidant, changes how you enter a relationship, and what you seek in it.

Bowlby (1969); Ainsworth et al. (1978); Hazan & Shaver (1987), JPSP.

→ Sign-up begins with your emotional state and relational pattern, not your height or your job.

05Gradual disclosure

Intimacy is built through gradual disclosure.

A famous experimental procedure showed that strangers could develop lasting closeness by revealing themselves progressively, in steps of increasingly personal questions. Intimacy comes from reciprocity, not performance.

Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone & Bator (1997), PSPB; Reis & Shaver (1988).

→ It's the architecture of the eleven steps: the same question, the values game, the pact. A disclosure between two, step by step.

06The voice

The voice reveals what text conceals.

With identical content, an answer heard, not read, makes the other person seem more thoughtful, more human, more worthy of consideration. The voice carries a presence that writing erases.

Schroeder, Kardas & Epley (2017), Psychological Science.

→ The eighth step of the journey is a voice question. The voice changes everything.

Our scientific honesty

What science forbids us to promise.

The research is clear: no algorithm, to this day, can predict who will make whom happy. So we will never tell you that we've "found the person of your life" before you've met them. That would be scientifically false.

What we do know how to do is create the conditions research associates with lasting connections: less choice, more attention; gradual disclosure; voice before face; time before the first drink.

The rest is yours.

Bibliography

Published, peer-reviewed work, cited in APA format. Each is available in a university library or via its DOI identifier.

01
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
02
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377.
03
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1 : Attachment. Basic Books.
04
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press.
05
D'Angelo, J. D., & Toma, C. L. (2017). There are plenty of fish in the sea: The effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters' satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psychology, 20(1), 1–27.
06
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
07
Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Romantic love: An fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493(1), 58–62.
08
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745.
09
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
10
Illouz, E. (2012). Why Love Hurts: A Sociological Explanation. Polity Press.
11
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.
12
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922.
13
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 367–389). Wiley.
14
Rosenfeld, M. J., Thomas, R. J., & Hausen, S. (2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. PNAS, 116(36), 17753–17758.
15
Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017). The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1745–1762.
16
Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate Selection: A Study of Complementary Needs. Harper & Brothers.
17
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27.

« Reading the research means refusing to treat people as data. »

Are you a researcher?

Sociology, attachment psychology, anthropology of love. If your work intersects with ours, write to us. Soulsync Labs opens its scientific committee in early 2027.

Write to Labs

Coming soon on iPhone and Android

The app you delete together.

Four people chosen for you each day. Time to truly meet. Download Soulsync, let Cupidon do the rest.